Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

slaytonf

Members
  • Content Count

    8,411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by slaytonf

  1. 1 hour ago, SansFin said:

    I beg all of you to change the subject from 1966 Oldsmobile Toronados before a certain little fuzzy returns and has time free to peruse this forum. He has owned three of them and has a minimum of one-hundred-and-sixty-three "interesting" stories about each. We might have to suffer also his theories of the design elements they share with the Jaguar XK-E and how a love child between the two would be the most excellent automobile in the world.

    Yikes!  I will have to strictly enforce the movie relevance of posts. 

    • Like 1
  2. 5 hours ago, Dargo said:

    Oh now slayton, ol' boy.

    YOU know you can always count on me to bring this baby back-on-track here, don't YA?!

    (...hey, and speaking of "tracks"...I used to ride from L.A. to Laguna Seca Raceway near Monterey with a bunch of guys every July to watch the World Superbike races there...but seein' as how you once told me that this thread was about cars and not motorcycles, I won't now attempt to post any pics of 'em that were ever in movies!)  ;)   LOL

    How could I ever have doubted you?

    If you want pics of bikes, you will have to start your own thread. 

  3. On 5/31/2021 at 2:02 PM, Herman Bricks said:

    For example I owned 71 and 72 Buick Skylarks and the handling was terrible,

    Ah, but they were kinda nice cars!

    7266854-1972-buick-skylark-std-c.jpg

    '72 Skylarks in movies:

    Seven Psychopaths (2012)

    Training Day (2017)

    Teenage Seductress (1975)

    The Dead Pool (1978)

    The Exorcist (1973)

    Charley Varrick (1973)

    Student Bodies (1981)

     

    • Like 1
  4. 3 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

    I don't understand your desire to influence other posters

    All part of my program to dominate the consciousness of humanity. 

    The grammar of the posters is irrelevant. Though their thinking may be as disjointed,  the eloquence, and the clear rational of my ideas will succeed. 

    I am not interested in influencing TCM. 

  5. 6 hours ago, Dargo said:

    Gee, in that case slayton, I've been wondering if people would register their complaints, suggestions and/or any other comments about TCM on one of the newer style social media sites, like say Facebook or Twitter, if there'd be any quicker responses received or actions taken from someone in a position to make changes at TCM?

    To respond to that would mean I'd have to visit Facebook and Twitter.  I've never felt a need to, but maybe I will.  My prejudiced opinion is that I'll see much the same content there as I do here, but I could be wrong.  There would be different names there, not that I've become tired of the ones I see here.  A wider audience (assuming there is one) would mean my comments could have greater influence, which is always a good thing.  One thing I'm certain of is that commentary there would have as little effect on programming as comments here.

    So I'm afraid you'll just have to have your mute button at the ready for when Mr. Mankiewicz is on.

  6. One of the great gifts to moviemaking, Mike Leigh, was featured earlier today with a double feature of his movies, Life is Sweet (1990) and High Hopes (1988).  I like to give a heads up for him, but overlooked it.  Life is Sweet has been on before, but High Hopes is new.  So little by little, we're seeing more of his work.  I'd like to see a retrospective of him, sometime.  His stories focus on the unexceptional, with plots that revolve around the common run of things.  His characters seem overdrawn at first, excessive in their vein, high-strung, or preoccupied, or befuddled.  They usually have some hole in their psyche, or some desperate need they seek to fulfill from their relations or loved ones.  Lacking that, they are driven deeper into idiosyncrasies.  The movie usually moves toward some crisis, or catharsis which resolves some or all of the issues.  The last scene is of tranquility with featured characters enjoying simple pleasures at rest.  That is when you realize with a start how you have been drawn into their lives and how much it matters to you what happens to them.

    Look for them on TCM on Demand, or the Watch TCM app, if you got 'em.  Or,--well, no, I won't suggest you pay to see them, not wishing to violate a basic tenant of TCM viewers.

    • Thanks 1
  7. 49 minutes ago, Dargo said:

    So then, pretty much like all those times I've mentioned Ben's "nasally voice" in almost any thread that has had his name in a thread's title, RIGHT slayton ol' chum?!!! 

    (...'cause evidently this has always just been for MY "own entertainment" around here, huh!)  ;)

    LOL

    You know it, Darg.  He's still around, and still nasally, so they're not listening to you.  The only instance I can think of where complaining has affected programming is when Joel McCrea got Star of the Month from a thread on him.  I think it only took a couple of years for that.

  8. Then just watch the movies.  As far as I know, TCM has never sent out enforcers en masse to people's living rooms to compel people at gun-point to watch the editorial content.  And there's nothing new about it, either.  Robert Osborne hosted month-long focuses on different aspects of prejudicial treatment of homosexuals, women, African-Americans, Latinos, Arab-Americans, etc.  Cause, I might add, for more voluminous, and heated objection on the messageboards  than we see today.  All this hasn't made a damn bit of difference in programming.  So if you like complaining, go at it to your heart's content.  Just be aware it's just for your own entertainment

  9. On 5/26/2021 at 9:03 AM, Sepiatone said:

    certain negative aspects in movies made 50-80+ years ago were intentional.  Like racism and/or misogyny.  Those horses should be hamburger by now, and all that spilled milk  is curdled.

    That is your agenda.  That the racism, sexism and the like common in studio era movies (and after) was not intentional.  Thus how could any of the targeted groups object?  This absurd claim is patently false.  But that is not the full agenda.  Another part that the people who object to marking movies for their bigoted content is to send the message to the subjects of the content that they are vulnerable.  If disparagement, ridicule, and demeaning portrayals in movies are allowed to pass unmarked, then the implication is that they are not  protected by the same guarantees (cultural and institutional) that the ones making the movies are.

    On 5/26/2021 at 9:03 AM, Sepiatone said:

    circle j e r k s

    When people know their position has no legitimacy they resort to abuse, insults, obscenity and the like to distract attention from the fact.  

  10. 19 minutes ago, Allhallowsday said:

    That's not what happened.  A TV personality is often and typically criticized.  It's not the same as "dissing" people in your personal life.   If one is in public life, one presumably grows a thick skin or drops out. 

    Yeah, that's a good rationalization.  If you keep telling yourself that, you might even believe it yourself.  I won't.

  11. 49 minutes ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

    I'd like to think I'm a nice person!   

     

    My observation wasn't directed at you, but other increasingly superfluous jabs.  I understood your comment arose more from the phoniness of the ad campaign.  But others took it as an opening to get out their rhetorical razors.

    • Like 1
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...